Would the below message be read as an ‘act of violence’ at Carleton U.?

I hope this letter is read by Arun Smith, a “seventh-year human rights student” who tore down a “Free Speech Wall” at Carleton University after claiming it was an “act of violence” against the gay community. As this story notes, among the comments written on the wall was one “that verged into anti-gay territory, reading ‘traditional marriage is awesome.’”
Mr. Smith, please enlighten us, the great unwashed, on what is valid free speech and what is not. You seem so gifted at determining what free speech is, that you need not even justify doing so. Such genius! I hope you can find the time to answer, as I know you must busy with, say, scrubbing down washroom stalls of invalid statements as well.
So that We, collectively, may avoid making invalid statements, perhaps you could define what you mean by “valid”? We all know how fluid words are and thus We await your wisdom on this.
Perhaps instead of defining it, since We may not have your level of education and, therefore, our untrained intellects may be untrustworthy, perhaps you would like us to simply appoint you as Public Censor? Your powers will be absolute and without appeal and, may I assure you, we will never question you, since your wisdom is so completely self-evident.
We’re waiting for you to save us from ourselves. James Crawford, Perth, Ont.

To those who are worried that universities are breeding grounds for young extremists, this disturbing incident at Carleton shows the truth is even worse. They are breeding the next generation of upper middle class kids with borderline personality disorders who sit around in taxpayer-funded student activity offices, where they channel their endless rage at the world, which cruelly fails to acknowledge their daring, contrarian genius, by manufacturing cycles of bogus controversy so they can see another twelve precious words in attributed to themselves in the press in which they pray for the humiliation and destruction of some other kid in another taxpayer-funded student office in the building next door. In other words, universities are breeding the only thing worse than more extremist radicals: more TV pundits. Paul Adam, Kingston, Ont.

In this story, about the “Free Speech Wall” at Carleton University being torn down, we read: “The only comment that verged into anti-gay territory was a scrawl reading “traditional marriage is awesome.” Seriously? Saying “traditional marriage is awesome” is verging into anti-gay territory? What next? “I love my wife, and I’m a man” is hate speech? Please, a little rewrite there to clarify. Perhaps “the only thing an activist like Arun Smith might widely construe — at a stretch — as anti-gay was a scrawl reading “traditional marriage is awesome.” But a stretch indeed! Derek Butler, Verdun, Que.

Are you still a fan of the NHL? Or was the latest lockout enough to turn you off ‘our game’? Send us your thoughts, in 75 words or fewer, by Jan. 25 at 2 p.m. EST to letters@nationalpost.com, with responses to be published on Jan. 28.

Our warrior Prince

Re: When Hunting The Taliban, ‘Go Ugly Early,’ letters to the editor, Jan. 23; ‘Take A Life To Save A Life,’ Jan. 22.
It is with disbelief that I read the article about Prince Harry and his duties in Afghanistan. It is time that the media stop this relentless and dangerous obsession with the royals. Prince Harry has done nothing here that is more remarkable than any other soldier in active duty. The world out there is not benevolent, especially not when it comes to the extremist and fundamental mind. Do the media have an agenda? Does senseless provocation help generate tomorrow’s “news”? Just stop, please? Ingrid Van Rensburg, Nanaimo, B.C.

It is brave of Prince Harry to say such outspoken words. The article states that the public is not in favour of him putting his duties as a soldier before his duties as a Prince. I think that his stance that he has to put his nation before himself shows that he is very well-suited for his role as a Prince. It is right for him to not be treated any differently because of his title. Soldiers are trained to shoot, so why should he be criticized for doing just that? Romaisa Pervez, Ajax, Ont.

I realize that many Canadians, who would never consider enlisting in the military, prefer to see our soldiers engaged in peacekeeping missions so they can feel self-righteous when they sew a flag on their backpack. The truth remains that soldiers are trained to kill the enemy, and Canada has a long and proud history of being very good at just that.
As a stay-at-home dad, who’s biggest decision today will be whether or not the snowsuits I bought for my twins are equal to the cold, I am a little envious of Prince Harry’s role as a combat helicopter pilot. Rory Gilfillan, Lakefield, Ont.

Our stylish PM

Re: Ottawa Covers Expenses For Top CEOs On China Tour, Jan. 22.
Who knew that Stephen Harper has a personal stylist, who even travels with him? If there is some mysterious dark art to actually having a middle-aged conservative politician come across as a middle-aged conservative politician, then Michelle Muntean (our PM’s “personal stylist”) has definitely mastered her craft. In fact, a search of images of Mr. Harper provides a seemingly infinite number of variations in the way in which a navy business suit can be worn. It must require a very nuanced understanding of public perceptions to be able to advise the Prime Minister whether to wear a tie with his suit or not, or to decide between a solid colour or patterned tie. Peter Mann, Hampstead, Que.

AK-47s and freedom (II)

Re: AK-47s, Freedom And The NRA, letters to the editor, Jan 22.
Having been honoured to have had an acquaintanceship with the now deceased Judge Robert Bork, former U.S. Supreme Court nominee and premier advocate of “original intent” constitutional adjudication, I recall a conversation with him on precisely the point letter writer Mahmood Elahi attempts to make.
By Mr. Elahi’s logic, the Second Amendment authors did not foresee so-called assault rifles, so therefore the Amendment should not reasonably apply to such firearms. But as shown in the records of the authors of the Constitution, the armed private citizenry of the Second Amendment was partially for protection against rogue powers, foreign or domestic. John C. Page, Mississauga, Ont.

In response to Mahmood Elahi’s contention that Adam Lanza could not possibly have killed 26 people without an “assault rifle” (which the AR-15 is certainly not), he seems very unclear on his history. The worst mass killing at a school in U.S. history occurred on May 18, 1927, in Bath Township, Mich.,when a disturbed man used explosives to murder 44 and injure another 58. On April 19, 1995, Timothy McVeigh managed to kill 168 people, including 19 children, again without the use of a firearm. Finally, on Sept. 11, 2001, 19 Islamic extremists killed nearly 3,000 people with nothing more than boxcutter knives.
Mr. Elahi’s belief that a gun is required to kill people is horribly wrong. All that is required is the intent of a disturbed mind to harm others. The tools used are irrelevant. Mark Mattock, Airdrie, Alta.

Please tell your letter writers that there is no such entity as an “assault rifle.” No more than there is such a thing as an assault knife. All weapons are assault weapons. It is a made-up term that means nothing. And how does Mahmood Elahi know that members of the “silent majority” want more gun control, if they’re silent? Karen Turner, New Westminster, B.C.

We’re not all equal

In his inaugural address, U.S. President Barrack Obama repeated the myth that all men are born equal. This is manifestly not so. Some men (and women) are born with brilliant minds; some are dim-witted. Some are born with physical handicaps; some with mental, or genetic aberrations that will lead to serious maladies in later life.
This brings to mind the apocryphal tale of the famous bass singer Feodor Chaliapin. At the time of the Russian Revolution, he was singing the name part of Mussorgsky’s opera Boris Goudenof at the local theatre. At the end of the performance, he was summoned by the commissar who said to him: “Comrade Chaliapin, since all men are equal, as of tomorrow you will be paid the same as comrade Bogolov who sweeps out the theatre after the performance. “Certainly, comrade commissar,” replied Chaliapin, “and since all men are equal, as of tomorrow I will sweep out the theatre, and comrade Bogolov can sing the part of Boris Goudenov”. Martin Gough, Victoria.

Simply madness

Re: Catch The Carbon, Richard Schiffman, Jan. 22.
This column neatly encapsulates the modus operandi of the global warming industry. First, scare them with outlandish predictions (Arctic icecap is melting, permafrost thawing, etc.) then introduce a new scheme to solve the problem, which naturally will cost lots and lots of money — but it’s to save the planet, isn’t it?
During the last 10 years, well over $1-trillion dollars has been invested worldwide so-called clean energy, mainly wind and solar. How much of this investment would have occurred, and how many fortunes would not have been made, if global warming had not entered our collective consciousness? Roger Graves, North Gower, Ont.

Pit bull wisdom

Re: Leave Those Dogs Alone, Heather Morgan, Jan. 21.
As a personal injury lawyer who has represented numerous victims of dog bites, and as a victim of a serious dog bite myself, I have learned some time ago that one should be cautious about receiving advice about biting dogs from a dog owner let alone an adoptions moderator for a pit bull rescue operation. There will always be differences of opinion but a simple Internet search of dog attack statistics by breed will display a result that shows that pit bull dogs or their close relatives are responsible for such a disproportionately high number of dog attacks so as to immediately end any debate about the issue. In regard to banning pit bulls, the Ontario government was right on the money on this one. Dan Mailer, London, Ont.

My adult son and I are the owners of an English bulldog, a breed that will have contributed to the genetic code of pit bulls. Dogs have always been part of our lives. Our Columbus is sweetly affectionate, is tolerant and wisely observant of the world around him, has a keen sense of humour and is the most reasonable and companionable couch snuggler that a dog lover is ever going to find.
That said, our darling Columbus is a bulldog. His ancestors were originally bred to fight (and kill) bulls. Something of this ancient instinct remains imbedded in the make-up of the bully-breeds and can at times be triggered by other dogs. We could so easily allow ourselves fall back on the comforting insistence that our sweetheart would never actually put those teeth to use — yet what if he did? We cannot take the risk. On our regular evening walks that he enjoys so much he is always firmly under control on a no-nonsense collar and leash. We respect and love him far too much to do anything else. Rebecca Sisler, Calgary.

Naturopaths: Quacks or healers?

Re: The Nothing Doctors, Timothy Caulfield, Jan. 22.
Professor Timothy Caulfield, in his self-proclaimed “rant” against the practice of homeopathy, claims “there is no evidence that homeopathy works” and “good research consistently tells us that homeopathic treatments do not work any better than placebos do.” I can offer some real-life evidence.
At nine months of age, our daughter developed eczema, an unpleasant skin condition. Drugs and ointments were prescribed for her by medical doctors. None worked. Eventually, my wife and I took her to a homeopathist. She was 20 months old.
After questioning us for about an hour, the doctor prepared remedies in the form of powders and pills to be taken orally. Soon she was completely free of eczema. It never reoccurred. She is now 45. It would be ludicrous to suggest that the powders and pills we administered produced some form of placebo effect. A 20-month old child cannot reason for herself.
To dismiss, even ridicule, the practice of homeopathy in such a pejorative manner and describe it as “bogus treatment” is to display arrogance and suggests, at best, a lack of research. How can one travel “down the road of rational debate” in company with a closed mind? Norman Ross, Calgary.

The approval of naturopathy by the province of Alberta reveals a deeply unsettling historical amnesia of our scientific culture, which was born out of the ability to make causal-natural connections between things and divest nature of occult or magical forces. As part of the Internet based superstitions and conspiratorial cults of unreason homeopathic remedies are not only a danger to physical health, but the very health of modern civilized society. They are a regression to primitivism. They should be resisted. Elijah Mvundura, Calgary.

Most treatments dispensed by naturopaths are effective and most of their ineffective treatments are benign. My surgeon recently recommended hot yoga and glucosamine sulphate for the torn meniscus in my right knee, saying that he would prefer to cut only if this more gentle process did not work. He and I both owe a debt of gratitude to naturopaths for having made this conservative approach acceptable. If we shun all medical practitioners selling some treatments of questionable efficacy, we will have no doctors.
Many times, what we most need is a good placebo. Patrick Cowan, Toronto.

Re: The Suzanne Somers Effect, Jonathan Kay, Jan. 23.
Jonathan Kay’s lack of understanding as to how the human body works, as well as his total reliance on mainstream medical practices, renders him unfit for writing about health. After all, this is the man who recently wrote an entire article as an ode (“The McNugget revolution,” Jan. 15) to the birth of the chicken McNugget. In historical terms, what we refer to as conventional is really alternative and what is derisively called alternative by Mr. Kay is actually conventional. That in fact, might be a good place for Mr. Kay to start, should he wish to educate himself. Barry Lubotta, Toronto.